JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 29, NO. 3, P. 209 (1992) EDITORIAL The Importance of Replication Studies Why are there so few replication studies in science education research? In other fields, when a particularly importantlcontroversial study is reported in a journal, its results are checked immediately. This is not a common practice in science education research. I recall reading Heather Brasell’s 1987 JRST article, “The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity ,” and thinking it was an important piece of research. The results suggested that even brief delays of more than 20 seconds in displaying graphed data of lab experiments could inhibit learning. There are important implications for both theory and practice of such results, but I do not recall seeing follow-up studies to check the results. A more recent study by Bishop and Anderson (JRST, 1990) is being replicated here at LSU by Sherry Demastes, Ph.D. student and JRST staff member. The study by Bishop and Anderson is one of the first tests of conceptual change theory at the college level. I use the studies by Brasell (1987) and Bishop and Anderson (1990) only as examples of research that, because of their important implications for theory and practice, should be replicated by other researchers. Qualitative as well as quantitative research results can be tested. Although replication studies may not be considered by some to be acceptable as dissertation research, they should nonetheless be valued by the research community. Perhaps replicating a study should be a precursor to dissertation research. The first and most important part of the process of replicating a study is deciding which study to replicate. This is always a difficult judgment to make. The most important and difficult decision for members of editorial review boards is whether a study has a chance to add something of importance to the knowledge base in question. Of the studies that survive the review process and appear in journals such as JRST, which should be selected for replication? The answer is partly a matter of individual preference and partly a group consensus that reflects the active research community. If you have some science education studies in mind that you think should be replicated, send them to me, including author title, journal, and so on. I will summarize the results of your choices and your comments, and include them in a future editorial. RON GOOD Editor 0 1992 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-43081921030209-01 $04.00

Editorial. The importance of replication studies

Download PDF Report

Upload
ron-good
View
216
Download
2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 29, NO. 3, P. 209 (1992)

EDITORIAL The Importance of Replication Studies

Why are there so few replication studies in science education research? In other fields, when a particularly importantlcontroversial study is reported in a journal, its results are checked immediately. This is not a common practice in science education research.

I recall reading Heather Brasell’s 1987 JRST article, “The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity ,” and thinking it was an important piece of research. The results suggested that even brief delays of more than 20 seconds in displaying graphed data of lab experiments could inhibit learning. There are important implications for both theory and practice of such results, but I do not recall seeing follow-up studies to check the results.

A more recent study by Bishop and Anderson (JRST, 1990) is being replicated here at LSU by Sherry Demastes, Ph.D. student and JRST staff member. The study by Bishop and Anderson is one of the first tests of conceptual change theory at the college level.

I use the studies by Brasell (1987) and Bishop and Anderson (1990) only as examples of research that, because of their important implications for theory and practice, should be replicated by other researchers. Qualitative as well as quantitative research results can be tested. Although replication studies may not be considered by some to be acceptable as dissertation research, they should nonetheless be valued by the research community. Perhaps replicating a study should be a precursor to dissertation research.

The first and most important part of the process of replicating a study is deciding which study to replicate. This is always a difficult judgment to make. The most important and difficult decision for members of editorial review boards is whether a study has a chance to add something of importance to the knowledge base in question. Of the studies that survive the review process and appear in journals such as JRST, which should be selected for replication? The answer is partly a matter of individual preference and partly a group consensus that reflects the active research community.

If you have some science education studies in mind that you think should be replicated, send them to me, including author title, journal, and so on. I will summarize the results of your choices and your comments, and include them in a future editorial.

RON GOOD Editor

0 1992 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-43081921030209-01 $04.00